International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-6866 Vol.

2, Issue 2 (2012) 25-31 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

STUDY OF RESPONSE OF STRUCTURALLY IRREGULAR BUILDING FRAMES TO SEISMIC EXCITATIONS

POONAM1, ANIL KUMAR1 AND ASHOK K. GUPTA2
1

Senior Lecturers in Civil Engineering, Jaypee

2

University of Information Technology, Waknaghat, Solan (HP) Professor of Civil Engineering, Jaypee University of Information Technology, Waknaghat, Solan (HP)

ABSTRACT
The Indian Standard code IS-1893: 2002 (Part-I) defines a number of structural irregularities. The code suggests a different approach of analysis for irregular structures. In this paper, response of a 10-storeyed plane frame to lateral loads is studied for mass and stiffness irregularities in the elevation. These irregularities are introduced by changing the properties of the members of the storey under consideration. Floor-mass ratios ranging from 1 to 5 are considered for mass irregularity. The mass irregularity is introduced at different storey levelsfourth and seventh levels. To introduce stiffness irregularity, the fourth and fifth storeys stiffnesses are reduced to 50% of that of other storeys in the base frame. Other than the first-storey, other storeys are also given similar stiffness irregularity. Moreover, the effects of floating columns as well as of unusually tall first storey on the dynamic response are also studied. Conclusions are derived regarding the effects of the irregularities on storey-shear forces, storey drifts and deflection of beams. It is found that the mass and stiffness criteria of the IS code results in moderate increase in response quantities of irregular structures compared to regular structures. Results of the numerical analysis indicate that any storey, especially the first storey, should not be softer than the storeys above or below. Non-uniform mass distribution also contributes to the increased response of the buildings. The irregularities, if required to be provided, need to be catered to by appropriate and extensive analysis and design processes. Based on these findings, some guidelines are proposed to make buildings safer to seismic excitations.

KEYWORDS: Dynamic response, structural irregularity, mass irregularity, stiffness irregularity INTRODUCTION
In the past, several major earthquakes have exposed the shortcomings in buildings, which had caused them to damage or collapse. It has been found that regular shaped buildings perform better during earthquakes. The structural irregularities cause non-uniform load distribution in various members of a building. There must be a continuous path for these inertial forces to be carried from the ground to the building weight locations. A gap in this transmission path results in failure of the structure at that location. There have been several studies on the irregularities, viz., evaluation of torsional response of

Poonam , Anil Kumar & Ashok K. Gupta

26

multistory buildings using equivalent static eccentricity (Tabatabaei and Saffari, 2011), threedimensional damage index for RC buildings with planar irregularities (Jeong and Elnashai, 2006), seismic response of vertically irregular frames with pushover analysis (Chintanapakdee, Chopra, 2004) and evaluation of mass, strength and stiffness limits for regular buildings specified by UBC (Valmundsson and Nau, 1997), etc. In the present paper, response of a 10-storeyed plane frame to lateral loads is studied for mass and stiffness irregularities in the elevation. These irregularities are introduced by changing the properties of the members of the storey under consideration. Various irregularities include soft storey, heavy loads on top floor, floating columns as well as unusually tall first storey. Effects on storey-shear forces, storey drifts and deflection of beams is studied.

STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES
There are various types of irregularities in the buildings depending upon their location and scope, but mainly, they are divided into two groupsplan irregularities and vertical irregularities. In the present paper, the vertical irregularities are considered and described as follows. Stiffness Irregularity Soft storey: A soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70% of that in the storey above or less than 80% of the average lateral stiffness of the three storeys above. Extreme Soft Storey: An extreme soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 60% of that in the storey above or less than 70% of the average stiffness of the three storeys above. For example, buildings on stilts will fall under this category. Mass Irregularity Mass irregularities are considered to exist where the effective mass of any storey is more than 150% of effective mass of an adjacent storey. The effective mass is the real mass consisting of the dead weight of the floor plus the actual weight of partition and equipment. Excess mass can lead to increase in lateral inertial forces, reduced ductility of vertical load resisting elements, and increased tendency towards collapse due to P- effect. Irregularities of mass distribution in vertical and horizontal planes can result in irregular response and complex dynamics. The central force of gravity is shifted above the base in the case of heavy masses in upper floors resulting in large bending moments. Vertical Geometric Irregularity Geometric irregularity exists, when the horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any storey is more than 150% of that in an adjacent storey. The setback can also be visualized as a vertical re-entrant corner. The general solution of a setback problem is the total seismic separation in plan through separation section, so that the portion of building is free to vibrate independently.

27

Study of Response of Structurally Irregular Building Frames to Seismic Excitations

Discontinuity in capacity - Weak Storey A weak storey is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than 80% of that in the storey above, the storey lateral strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting elements sharing the storey shear in the considered direction.

PROBLEM FORMULATION
The problem considered for the current study is taken from IS 1893-part 1: 2002 and also have been used by Valmundsson and Nau, 1997. This 10-storey building frame is considered with five different irregularities as taken from IS 1893-part1: 2002. Thus, we have six frames including the base frame. These six frames have been analysed using equilalent static method of IS 1893-part 1: 2002 while assuming sesmic zone IV, and importance factor 1.5. Analysis has been carried out using CSI-ETABS program. Configuration of frames is as given below and shown in Fig. 1. Frame-1: This is the basic and the regular structure of the building with no irregularities and having three bays and ten storeys, with a storey height of 3.5 m and the bay width of 5 m. The basic specifications of the building are: Dimensions of the beam = 0.45 m 0.25 m; Column size = 0.30 m 0.30 m; Beam length = 5 m; Column length = 3.5 m; Load combination = DL + LL + EQL; Dead Load = 8.5 kN/m; Live Load = 10 kN/m. Frame-2: This frame carries heavier loading on the top storey, e.g., in the top storey swimming pool has been introduced hence making the top storey heavy, and the building becomes irregular. It has three bays and ten storeys, with a storey height of 3.5 m and the bay width of 5 m. Frame-3: It is with floating columns. The two middle columns are being left hanging on the second storey and hence not reaching the ground. Rest of the geometry is same as that of frame-1. Frame-4: Frame having 1st and 2nd storeys soft. No floor slab has been provided which makes these two storeys less stiff, i.e., softer. Frame-5: Frame with heavy loading on 4th and 7th storeys. Two storeys of the building, i.e., 4th and 7th storeys, carry heavier loads, hence making the building irregular. Frame-6: This frame has its 4th and 5th storeys soft. No floor slabs have been provided which makes these two storeys soft.

Poonam , Anil Kumar & Ashok K. Gupta

28

Figure 1 : Frames with different irregularities

ANALYSIS RESULTS
The six frames have been analysed and their lateral storey-displacements, storey drfits and base shears have been computed to study the effects of irregularities on the frames. The results are presented and discussed hereafter. Table-1 shows displacement of storeys of various frames in X-direction which is horizontal. These have been plotted and shown in Fig. 3(a). Table 1 : Storey-displacements (UX) in X-direction (mm) Frame-1 Storey STOREY10 STOREY9 STOREY8 STOREY7 STOREY6 STOREY5 STOREY4 STOREY3 STOREY2 STOREY1 BASE UX 32.8944 31.7777 29.7106 26.9246 23.5828 19.8416 15.8341 11.6716 7.4441 3.2694 0 Frame-2 UX 54.7926 54.6869 50.175 44.3691 38.1508 31.682 25.0611 18.3703 11.6795 5.1138 0 Frame-3 UX 134.7907 134.7023 130.4993 125.0986 119.3131 113.2898 107.0725 99.5636 71.7422 24.8356 0 Frame-4 UX 46.5885 45.8299 43.7662 41.0559 37.7978 34.1496 30.2335 26.181 21.7459 9.7551 0 Frame-5 UX 46.7261 45.5418 43.7754 43.6665 38.0646 32.3048 32.2094 24.9491 15.9561 6.9974 0 Frame-6 UX 47.189 46.4236 44.3027 41.5488 37.9406 27.0572 15.7235 11.179 7.1457 3.1288 0

29

Study of Response of Structurally Irregular Building Frames to Seismic Excitations

It can be seen that the frame-3 gets displaced the most since the lateral stiffness at its bottom two storeys is quite less than other storeys. Although, minimum being in the base frame itself. Typical deflected shapes of various frames in their first modes are shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2 : Deflected shapes of various frames in their first modes Storey-drifts for all the frames are presented in Table-2 while plotted as Fig. 3(b). Frame-3 and frame-4 are seen to exhibit abrupt changes in storey drifts, which is highly undesirable. Table 2 : Storey drift in X-direction (mm) Frame-1 Storeys STOREY10-9 STOREY9-8 STOREY8-7 STOREY7-6 STOREY6-5 STOREY5-4 STOREY4-3 STOREY3-2 STOREY2-1 STOREY1-0 1.1167 2.0671 2.786 3.3418 3.7412 4.0075 4.1625 4.2275 4.1747 3.2694 0.1057 4.5119 5.8059 6.2183 6.4688 6.6209 6.6908 6.6908 6.5657 5.1138 0.0884 4.203 5.4007 5.7855 6.0233 6.2173 7.5089 27.8214 46.9066 24.8356 0.7586 2.0637 2.7103 3.2581 3.6482 3.9161 4.0525 4.4351 11.9908 9.7551 1.1843 1.7664 0.1089 5.6019 5.7598 0.0954 7.2603 8.993 8.9587 6.9974 0.7654 2.1209 2.7539 3.6082 10.8834 11.3337 4.5445 4.0333 4.0169 3.1288 Frame-2 Frame-3 Frame-4 Frame-5 Frame-6

Poonam , Anil Kumar & Ashok K. Gupta

30

The storey shears as given by ETABS using IS 1893 part-1: 2002, are given in Table-3 and also plotted as Fig. 3(c). Frame-5, being the heaviest one, develops maximum amount of shear force in its storeys. Frames 1, 4 and 6 have smaller storey-shears. Table 3 : Storey shear (VX) in X-direction (kN) Frame-1 Storey STOREY10 STOREY9 STOREY8 STOREY7 STOREY6 STOREY5 STOREY4 STOREY3 STOREY2 STOREY1 VX -9.39 -19.16 -26.87 -32.78 -37.12 -40.14 -42.06 -43.15 -43.63 -43.75 Frame-2 VX -28.13 -52.33 -57.41 -61.29 -64.15 -66.13 -67.4 -68.12 -68.43 -68.51 Frame-3 VX -26.16 -48.68 -53.4 -57.02 -59.67 -61.52 -62.7 -63.36 -63.49 -63.52 Frame-4 VX -9.13 -18.63 -26.13 -31.87 -36.09 -39.03 -40.9 -41.96 -42.39 -42.48 Frame-5 VX -9.2 -18.78 -47.61 -69.68 -73.93 -85.19 -92.4 -93.47 -93.94 -94.06 Frame-6 VX -9.26 -18.89 -26.5 -32.33 -36.24 -38.63 -40.32 -41.39 -41.87 -41.98

Figure 3 : Response of various frames with irregularities

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Considering the storey displacement, the frame with floating columns (frame-3) is the weakest since it suffers the maximum displacement while the base frame exhibits the least displacement. As far as storey drift is concerned, frame-3 (with bottom two storeys soft) is the weakest since it has the maximum

31

Study of Response of Structurally Irregular Building Frames to Seismic Excitations

storey drift which changes abruptly. Frame-4 also shows similar pattern for bottom two storeys. Storey shear, however, is maximum in frame-5 (with 4th and 7th storeys heavy). It can be inferred clearly that the frame with floating columns represents the worse scenario since it faces the maximum displacement and is most prone to damages under this lateral loading. While, on the other hand, it can be seen that the base frame has the least displacement and drift, hence least susceptible to the damage. In this paper, various frames having different irregularities but with same dimensions have been analysed to study their behaviour when subjected to lateral loads. All the frames were analysed with the same method as stated in IS 1893-part-1: 2002. The base frame (regular) develops least storey drifts while the building with floating columns shows maximum storey drifts on the soft storey levels. Hence, this is the most vulnerable to damages under this kind of loading. The other buildings with irregularities also showed unsatisfactory results to some extent. The frame with heavy loads develops maximum storey shears, which should be accounted for in design of columns suitably. The analysis proves that irregularities are harmful for the structures and it is important to have simpler and regular shapes of frames as well as uniform load distribution around the building. Therefore, as far as possible irregularities in a building must be avoided. But, if irregularities have to be introduced for any reason, they must be designed properly following the conditions of IS 1893-part-1: 2002 and IS456: 2000, and joints should be made ductile as per IS 13920:1993. Now a days, complex shaped buildings are getting popular, but they carry a risk of sustaining damages during earthquakes. Therefore, such buildings should be designed properly taking care of their dynamic behaviour.

REFERENCES
1. Valmundsson and Nau. (1997). Seismic response of buildings frames with vertical structural

irregularities. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 1, 30-41. 2. Chintanapakdee and Chopra. (2004). Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: response history and modal pushover analyses. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 1177-1185. 3. Tabatabaei and Saffari. (2011). Evaluation of the torsional response of multistory buildings using equivalent static eccentricity. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 8, 862-868. 4. Jeong and Elnashai. (2006). New three-dimensional damage index for RC buildings with planar irregularities. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9, 1482-1490.